I have a question. What if a want to upload a picture here on CL (well, on Flikr in my case), of a person. And let’s say I can’t ask her for permission anymore. What do I do? I mean, I don’t want to go to prison if the person find’s out. Of course I am not going to use pictures which could make the person feel uncomfortable or embarrassed . But I suppose we are all familiar with the situation when you go and photograph a spectacular, beautifully, really hot girl and then show her the picture expecting her to fall on her butt of astonishment, as you do yourself, and she goes: “Mather of God! I look like a deformed pregnant walrus. ” You never know. How do you do it? Do you go to the street, take same photos and upload them straight away? Thanks for your answers.

Ivan Manko

PS: If this question has been asked before, I’m sorry. I didn’t find it.

You should look up the relevant laws in your country. In the US, I believe that anybody in public is fair game. You don't need explicit permission to post photos online. I'm pretty sure you don't even need explicit permission to use photos taken in public for commercial purposes.

The rule that I stick to as a street photographer is to upload anything I find good enough to upload, whether or not I got permission (I never have). It's perfectly legal in most countries to do that. However, making money off of the images usually isn't. You'd need to check the laws in your country for that, all I know is that in Holland I would need a model release to be able to make money with my street photography. Guess I'm never gonna earn back what I pay for my Leica...

Thanks, people. I've also read Going Candid. And what I understood from all this is that it actually isn’t such a big deal uploading photos. Not that I am going to... I am afraid I don't like street photography enough to develop the (forgive me the expression) balls.

I'm pretty sure you don't even need explicit permission to use photos taken in public for commercial purposes.

I am 99% sure this is incorrect, especially in the US. For commercial use (as opposed to editorial/news use) of an image you need to get a signed model release.

Caveat:

Quote:

Local, state, and national laws may exist pertaining to photographing or videotaping. Laws that are present may vary from one jurisdiction to the next, and may be stricter in some places and more lenient in others, so it is important to know the laws present in one's location.

Response:

Quote:

Members of the public have virtually no privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, or inside a private residence. This legal standard applies regardless of the age, sex, or other attributes of the individual.

For example, think of the paparazzi photos frequently taken of celebrities, including dozens of random other people in the background. These photos are still sold legally and published, without explicit consent from either the celebrity or the background people. It could be that this is a special case because it's "news". But if you're 99% sure, I'd like to see your source.

The quoted material doesn't relate to members of the public. Paparazzi pictures are of famous people who are deemed to be newsworthy as a result of their public status. Such pictures are published in newspapers and magazines - such use being considered news/commentary/criticism. Such use doesn't require a model release. Likewise a member of the public photographed at, for example, the scene of a newsworthy event would also not need a release if that image was used for the purpose of reporting the event.

It is perfectly legal to take photographs of members of the public in a public space for non-commercial use (IE your own useage). However, use such as printing an image on a postcard or in a photobook etc that you intend to sell is considered purely commercial and doesn't benefit from the exemptions that news coverage does. As such you can't use an image of an individual for purely commercial use without a signed model release. If this was not the case then no one would ever bother getting model releases signed. They do bother exactly because they are required.

The quoted material begins with the exact phrase "Members of the public".

usernametaken wrote:

As such you can't use an image of an individual for purely commercial use without a signed model release.

Can you cite a source? Is this perhaps the law in your area?

And perhaps Gordon can help us here. Are model releases needed for, e.g., sample images of the shotover jet? In the Panasonic FZ47/FZ48 review that was just put up, there is a video of random people in a coffee shop. Were model releases needed for that? Certainly use on a website that generates income should be considered commercial use.

The quoted material begins with the exact phrase "Members of the public".

Sorry I didn't mean the quoted material but rather your comment re paparazzi. Photographers are indeed free to take images of the public as there is no right to privacy (except in certain limited cases such as when in a changing room, toilet etc, where there is an expectation of privacy). However those images can't be used for commercial purposes.

Quote:

Quote:

usernametaken wrote:As such you can't use an image of an individual for purely commercial use without a signed model release.

So a model release is required for commercial use of an image of a member of the public (or anyone else). However my idea of what constitutes commercial use was wrong. It seems from these sources that the sale of an image is not in and of itself considered "commercial use". That only occurs when the image is used for commerce (IE in an advert promoting a product or company).

So, you can put an image of someone on a post card (or in a photobook) and sell it.

You can't sell it to a company for use in a product advert (or rather you can sell it but it would be worthless to them as they couldn't use it without a model release).

It can't be sold for use on a company web site because the purpose of such web sites is to promote the company, its product and/or its services and as such is considered commercial use. This is why all stock photo sites require model release forms because the vast majority of their images will be used on company web sites or in brochures etc.

Following on from the above you can't use an image you took (without a release) on your own photography website - if its purpose is to promote your photography business; but you can post the same image on a photo sharing website like Flickr, as its purpose is the display of the images and not the promotion of your business.

Thanks everyone for your answers and information. I've been digging in local laws (Spain). And they don't look too encouraging. Your picture WILL be considered an intrusion unless:

- You have the explicit permission of the subject (well, person).
-That the image has an scientific, historical or cultural (:? ) interest
- It's someone relatively famous (or very famous, of course)
- The person is not the center of the attention of the photo; he was just walking down the frame.

This are just laws, by which, and in the worst of the cases, the judge should make a decision. He would still have a bit of margin thou. What I don’t like about this laws is that if someone comas you can’t just say “You see, the law allows me to take pictures for non commercial proposes”, which is not the case and I can’t.